Jump to content

Talk:Cultural depictions of Medusa and Gorgons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled]

[edit]

At the first glimpse of the terrible head of medusa, they whitened into marble

Creation of this article

[edit]

I've created this article as a prose rewrite of other Medusa/gorgon popular culture lists that includes what I believe is notable information and excludes the excessive trivial references and minutae of other versions. Medusa and the gorgons are iconic figures, and some of their uses in fiction are notable, in particular because they are ancient figures that persist in our culture.

Do not add every minor reference to Medusa or gorgons here; the information in this article should provide notable and new information about the use and dramatization of these mythological figures. In particular, the use of the word "Medusa" in the title of a song or album, or the mere inclusion of the character in a video game, is not in itself notable and is therefore inappropriately listed here. References like these will be deleted to keep this article free of the excessive trivia and fancruft that has made previous versions eligible for deletion. TAnthony 02:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced/insignificant info archive

[edit]

I've removed the following items from the article as they are unreferenced and at this point have little relevance (individually) to the cultural impact of Medusa or gorgons; I'm collecting them here because a future source may potentially make one or more of them relevant. Do not re-add any of this data without sources asserting notability. Anyone interested in finding every video game or whatever that features Medusa can look at the What links here page for Medusa.

*Charles Stross's novella The Concrete Jungle features a "scientific" explanation for the ability of a Gorgon to turn people to stone, which is then used as the basis for technological devices which play a central role in the story.

  • I had hopes for this one - a book with a potentially notable interpretation of Medusa's powers as a main feature - but the Wikipedia article doesn't even mention the Medusa angle. Canuckle 15:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a copy of the story right here waiting for me to find the time to read it; the applicable info is a condition which I believe is called "gorgonism" in the novella. It will no doubt make for a notable mention in the Concrete Jungle article itself, but we'll probably have difficulty making sourced parallels with the Medusa/Gorgon articles. Maybe we'll get lucky, and someone has analyzed it like they did Clash and The Gorgon. TAnthony 16:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*In A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens, Book the Second Chapter IX is titled "The Gorgon's Head," and the gorgon is alluded to in the subsequent description of the Marquis St. Evremonde's stone chateau (as well as mentioned at the end of the chapter).[4]

*In the Disneyland/Disney World ride, the Haunted Mansion, there is a morphing painting of a beautiful woman in a temple turning into Medusa.

  • "Ancient Gorgon" is Monster in My Pocket #60, and has wings, claws and snaky hair.
  • "Medusa" is Monster in My Pocket #26, appearing as a beautiful woman with snaky hair
  • Reflecting its use by the ancient world as a protective apotropaic symbol, [5] a gorgon image with moving snakes for hair appears on an ancient Roman wall in the opening credits sequence for the HBO series Rome, although the face itself is neither ugly or menacing.

*Madame Medusa is the name of the villainess from Disney's animated film, The Rescuers (1977).

  • Examples of use of name: The Marvel comics character Medusa's powers revolve around her prehensile red hair. [6] In the series Watch Over Me, the biochemical virus called Medusa results in paralysis and ultimately death (the antidote is called Perseus);[7] the fictional Medusa spider (Latrodectus regina) in the Lost episode "Exposé" is said to have very strong attractive pheromones, and its bite paralyzes its victims for eight hours in a manner which simulates death, even to a doctor. [8] [9]
  • I think the article should have a brief statement that describes the obvious but I haven't got the wording yet. "Various items (the Watch over Me virus, the Lost spider) have been named after Medusa due to Medusa's powers of petrification or paralysis." Something around that. Canuckle 15:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add power of attraction. Canuckle 17:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly; it's just that some of the dissenters are right in that it becomes OR if you have to point out the connection without a source to that effect. The whole reason I introduced the quote about the name coming "to mean monster" (and the Female Rage quote about the name having bad connotations even to women who didn't know the myth) was to infer this point and let the Lost refs etc. serve as examples without explicitly spelling it out. TAnthony 16:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Derivative" use is a good description I think. Yes, we must be careful with WP:OR but I've also tagged "citation needed" on my own work if I'm confident there is a source out there. I also think that indicating in the article that we're aware there are minor, non-notable uses helps to inform and discourage editors from adding trivia. Nature abhors a vaccuum after all. Canuckle 17:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I've only added data relating to 2-3 games, I would like some answers from you on why the games are not important when there is a greater chance that younger generation will have the first glimpse of these mythological creatures from games, comics and movies instead of visiting some museum displaying some classical Greek vase or say some old time concept art of Medusa. Besides Cinema and Gaming have significantly influenced the 'Popular Culture' and the representation of Gorgons and other mythical creatures remain similar to what have been passed down from Ancient Scholars. It should be noted that in the game 'Titan Quest' and 'God of War', Medusa and her sisters are involved in Main Quests. As far as the valid references considered, I provided that.--Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been challenged and deleted in many other forms, in particular because of the amount of videogame-related "trivia" that has been here in the past. I agree with you in that the fact that Medusa appears in so many videogames, comics, and such asserts how iconic she is. However, the critics have pointed out that we need reliable sources which make this point rather than merely listing Medusa appearances to make the point. Does that make sense? Awhile back I was working on this article and implemented the material regarding the 1981 Clash of the Titans because I was lucky enough to find a book which explicitly noted that "most people today who are aware of the story of Perseus and Medusa owe their knowledge" to the film. If you can find something which establishes that Medusa's frequent appearance in videogames, etc. is notable, we can use it.— TAnthonyTalk 06:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now if you demand a book for referring purpose which "mentions" people playing e.g "God of War" have knowledge of 'Medusa/Perseus story', that's simply ridiculous. Instead you should be asking for electronic, I mean some "reliable" web references which I had provided with my updates and can also be done for other games and yes a typical gamer will be well aware of Medusa and her significance in Greek mythology than a typical tourist visiting some Greekish Museum. And that will be because of In-Game references to classical Greece as well as supplementary Game docs and Goodies if he/she hasn't already read about them in books or online. In Age of Mythology for example, Perseus and Medusa do not fight in game, but their stats window clearly explains the Mythical story. You might point out that comics, games, movies do not stay loyal to the original story, but then again, in many cases you have multiple versions of a single mythical encounter. Moreover, it should be noted that Medusa and for that matter any other mythical character stay true to their basic characteristic features and behaviours even if the story is changed. In every incarnation, Medusa appears with her "snaky hair" and petrifying power.

I'm aware of size concerns. If that's the reason, then we can move it into a separate page or we can just mention the name of the games, movies, comics etc where Medusa appears instead of writing elaborately like what has been done in the past.--BerserkMonk (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me "demanding" a book, it's Wikipedia notability policies etc. that disallow listing every pop culture mention of a topic. From an encyclopedic point of view, noting that the character appears in many games is just as useful as (and less messy than) listing every one of them.— TAnthonyTalk 05:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other depictions

[edit]

Might it not be useful, however, to note the various depictions of Gorgons in popular media that do NOT conform to the female human/snake hybrid? For instance, in both the Castlevania and Dungeons and Dragons series of games, there are monsters called Gorgons that instead look like giant bulls that can turn people to stone? Of particular interest, I think, is that Medusa appears in her "traditional" form in these media as well. Alucardtepes (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In others Medusa looks perfectly normal--even quite attractive--unless viewed through a mirror or other reflective surface (e.g. "Meddy" in the Land of the Lost series). --The_Iconoclast (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Land of the Lost depiction should be included. --2600:6C65:747F:CD3F:3C4C:E256:4C6:208C (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A version of Medusa is also in 'The Sarah Jane Adventures' series 3 episode 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:6E0D:A401:A0C7:EFD:4079:B0B7 (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on/Deletion

[edit]

This new article is a new presentation of information and should be considered as such. As noted above, it includes notable information and excludes the excessive junk that got previous articles deleted (like song titles containing the word "Medusa"). It is not simply a prose version of the previous list! Perhaps there is some information that is unnecessary, but it is not all worthy of deletion.

I actually agree that the prevalence of useless trivia is a problem on Wikipedia, but there is room for information that can realistically be useful to someone. When I am researching something as a reader, I want to know that Livia was dramatized in I, Claudius, what films were made about the RMS Titanic and yes, some places where Medusa has been portrayed and how the name has come to cannote certain things in our culture. TAnthony 04:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not address the concerns from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorgons and Medusa in popular culture. Some information was removed and the formatting was changed, but if that were all that was needed then the page wouldn't have been deleted. Jay32183 19:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I had been able to contribute to that deletion discussion, but it seems to me that the bulk of deletion votes involved the excessive, non-notable references ("so-and-so wrote a song called 'Medusa'"), all of which are now gone. I would argue that in its current form the article does not blatantly fail WP:NOT#DIR. The current references are not as "loosely-associated" as you would suggest. We're not talking about "Rachel said 'Medusa' on Friends," we're talking about significant modern representations of this ancient figure, its prevalence in certain media and that fact that the name itself has become synonymous with certain ideas in our language and culture. That is notable. TAnthony 20:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are loosely associated because referencing something does not make two works connected. Clash of the Titans is not related to Monsters Inc. Claiming they are because of gorgons is original research. The article also still has no secondary sources. The reason the AFD resulted in delete was not that some of the material was inappropriate, but that all of the content was not suitable for an article. Jay32183 20:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can go on like this forever, LOL. I honestly do see your point and I'm not suggesting that every reference in this article is necessarily important. But by your argument, if these films cannot be put side-by-side just because they feature gorgons, then the countries featured in List of oil-producing states cannot be associated just because they all have oil. To me, it's somewhat of a gray area. Making unsourced assertions and conclusions in an article is OR, providing information and allowing readers to make their own connections is not. TAnthony 20:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of oil-producing states actually has a source that connects all of them, so it isn't original research. This page doesn't have any sources and you are unlikely to find any. This entire article is an unsourced assertion. Jay32183 20:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, if you think it's impossible to find sources mentioning Medusa in popular culture you really are hopeless and shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia. They're freaking everywhere. DreamGuy 21:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Implementing sources

[edit]

I have found a great source and am in the process of rewriting and citing the article sentence by sentence. I'd appreciate a reasonable amount of time to get the article in shape before someone acts on its possible deletion. Once I've implemented this particular source I will also seek others to round out the article (by the way, this first source is "searchable within the book" on Amazon.com if anyone is interested in checking it out). TAnthony 02:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP pending edits: I have been on the fence about the gorgon and Medusa articles but am swayed by this new source. If the article can be adequately referenced and some more extraneous info removed, I definitely see its usefulness. TheRhani 02:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent AfD

[edit]

This is a new presentation of the information, which includes sources. I am not finished, but I have sourced much of the article and removed much of the non-notable info. Previous deletions of similar articles should have no bearing on this one. TAnthony 03:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a vast improvement over previous lists of Medusa references that were not notable. This new version cannot be compared to other ones. TAnthony is obviously bringing this article up to speed, and I am happy with it so far. TheRhani 03:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

possible sources

[edit]
Reviewed in Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2004.07.19 [1]
Reviewed in Women's Art Journal - The timeless fascination with Medusa, a “trait evidently shared by Ovid, Freud, and Gianni Versace,” makes The Medusa Reader (edited by Marjorie Garber and Nancy J. Vickers) “useful, entertaining, and eclectic,” writes reviewer Carolyn Springer. The collection includes references from literature, philosophy, psychology, advertising, and the arts (from Louis Marin on Caravaggio’s Self Portrait as Medusa to Jo Springer quoting the Betty Crocker Home Library’s The Pleasures of Crewel).
  • Engaging Medusa: Competing Myths and Fairytales in In the Cut
  • Chapter 2: The Gaze of Medusa and the Practice of the Historian: Rubens and Huygens from Speaking with the Dead: Explorations in Literature and History by Jurgen Peters, Edinburgh University Press (December 15, 2005) ISBN 0748615881

Canuckle 15:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Medusa

[edit]
  • I think this topic should be merged with Medusa given how short that article is and how much it would benefit from an exploration of this and other topics (such as feminist theory). You may find a chronological treatment to be easier: in Myth, in Renaiisance, the next time period, Modern (with subsection for film/tv, videogames, etc.) Canuckle 15:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point; if this article continues to develop in the "cultural impact of Medusa" direction, it would be an appropriate part of the Medusa article, which itself needs development in the art and literary representation sections. This would also reinforce the film references as examples of the character's evolvement etc. rather than stand-alone culture references. TheRhani 16:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding the merge tags now. Further discussion to be on Talk:Medusa page. Canuckle 21:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created for a specific purpose, and that was that the cultural impact of the Medusa character has more detail than what can reasonably fit on the main article.

I've removed the tag as firmly against the consensus established in the deletion vote for this article. We've got people voting to KEEP and also people voting to DELETE who do not want this info on the main article. The merge idea goes against the views of one full side and much of another side. It is therefore completely inappropriate and demonstrably against consensus. DreamGuy 21:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As described on Talk:Medusa: There hasn't been a consensus established yet in the ongoing AfD. There have been Delete and Keep but also Merge votes. Is it inappropriate to discuss a merger on a Talk page while an AfD occurs in parallel? Maybe, but I began this discussion in good faith. Canuckle 22:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way this article is shaping up, I think it will end up fitting nicely into the main article; it is now more about Medusa's appearance in art and literature than anything else, and those sections are underdeveloped in the main article. The main article isn't that long, and much of the trivia objected-to by dissenters has been removed. But I agree that the merge should come after the AfD is settled, and perhaps only certain parts should be merged. TAnthony 23:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't an assumption. Was a question. Please expand on your comment above. Canuckle 01:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a loaded question with built-in bias. It was split off because the section was too big, and there was enough there that it deserved its own article. Lots of articles do this. This is standard Wikipedia policy. To even try to claim it was an overreaction assumes that articles should never be split for any reason. It was split off for all the standard reasons sections get split off into new articles, and it was the right decision, as further backed up in a vote to delete that failed. DreamGuy 02:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may comment here, Medusa and Gorgon originally both had extremely long, nearly identical "in popular culture" sections (a lot of trivia) that were each then split off into separate articles. I actually combined them into Gorgons and Medusa in popular culture, which was deleted when I wasn't watching! So I recreated it in the form of this current article, trying to address the notability, sourcing and trivia issues noted in that AfD discussion. And here we are! Now that the article has gone in a better direction, I definitely think a partial merge back into Medusa is appropriate. As noted above and discussed further below, I think the art and literature sections have a place in the main article, we eliminate the "In popular culture" section and link entirely, and move what's left in this article (and basically all art refs, etc) into Cultural depictions of Medusa and gorgons or whatever, in the form of tables with introductory text. TAnthony 02:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DreamGuy: You assume too much about my supposed assumptions. Some people dump and shun pop-culture trivia off their page and protect the main articles rigorously. Others create the standalone article for length reasons and view the content as perfectly acceptable as is. It's often hard to tell the difference. And I feel part of the reason the article survived the 2nd AfD was because of the work we put into it. If you want to help maintain or improve the article, great, but we don't need to be antagonistic about it. Leave the acrimony for the "Kill Pop Cult Cult" crusadersCanuckle 14:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List format?

[edit]

I'm not sure if a list is desirable, but I've wanted to try one out for a while. What do you think of this? Looks like the sort by date doesn't like pre-1000 dates. Canuckle 06:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medusa in art and culture

[edit]
Date Title Type Artist Notes
200 BC Alexander Mosaic Painting Medusa on the breastplate of Alexander the Great in Pompeii mural
8 Metamorphoses Poem Ovid ca. 8 AD
1554 Perseus with the Head of Medusa Sculpture Benvenuto Cellini Bronze
1597 Medusa Painting Caravaggio Oil on canvas
1600s Medusa Painting Leonardo da Vinci Oil on canvas, possibly the work of an anonymous Flemish painter, active ca. 1600
1617/1618 Head of Medusa Painting Peter Paul Reubens “perhaps the earliest original treatment for 16th-17th Century European art…the depiction of the severed head of Medusa, ‘entwined by snakes,’ was for artists of that period a very handy way to demonstrate their ability to instill fear in the spectator.”[10]
1644-1648 [11] Bust of Medusa Sculpture Gian Lorenzo Bernini White marble [11]
1801 Perseus with the Head of Medusa Sculpture Antonio Canova
1854 On the Medusa of Leonardo da Vinci in the Florentine Gallery Poem Percy Bysshe Shelley Published after his death
1878 Medusa Painting Arnold Böcklin Oil on canvas
1904 L’esprit a combattu le mal Painting Paul Klee “portrays a complete reversal of roles -- Perseus is painted full face with a terrible countenance, while Medusa turns aside.”[12]
1922 Das Medusenhaupt (Medusa’s Head} Book Sigmund Freud Medusa is presented as “the supreme talisman who provides the image of castration -- associated in the child's mind with the discovery of maternal sexuality -- and its denial. The snakes are multiple phalluses and petrifaction represents the comforting erection.”[12]
1976 Perseus Sculpture Salvador Dalí Bronze[13]
  1. ^ Medusa the Gorgon - Atmosfear.com.au
  2. ^ Clash of the Titans Episodes: "Sibling Rivalry" - TeleToon.com
  3. ^ Monsters, Inc. review - DecentFilms.com
  4. ^ WikiSource: Dickens, Charles. A Tale of Two Cities.
  5. ^ Garber, Marjorie. The Medusa Reader, 24 February 2003, Introduction, pg. 2, ISBN 0-415-90099-9.
  6. ^ Medusa: Solving the Mystery of the Gorgon, pg. 200.
  7. ^ Watch Over Me Episode guide - Yahoo TV
  8. ^ ABC.com - Lost Episode Guide: #314 "Exposé" pg. 4
  9. ^ ABC.com - Lost Episode Guide: #314 "Exposé" pg. 5
  10. ^ Rubens Head of Medusa at The State Hermitage Museum, Art Knowledge News, retrieved on July 16, 2007
  11. ^ a b Restoration of the Bust of Medusa by Gian Lorenzo Bernini - En.museicapitolini.org
  12. ^ a b Medusa in Myth and Literary History - English.uiuc.edu
  13. ^ Salvador Dali/Bronze sculpture/1976 - Artnowgallery.nu
This list will be great as part of the Medusa master plan (lol); there are so many notable items and it's too cumbersome a list to explore in prose (and unnecessary). I envision beefing up the main article's art section to include an overview/chronology of Medusa in art and literature (from my research so far, the two seem to have mutually influenced each other) that includes what you've started implementing in this article. We cover the major points and works and then link to a complete list (or two separate lists, if necessary, as there is a lot of literature). And I think this will basically phase out the "in popular culture" concept, which seems to cause the most controversy.
By the way, thanks again for all your hard work here, it's very exciting to see the article take shape. I wish I had more time lately to devote to this. TAnthony 13:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose by era is important to set the context and establish (and source) the notability of individual artworks, analyses and trends. If we use the above table, it may be wise to have it at the end of the article and have separate tables by type: Sculpture, Painting, Poetry. Canuckle 16:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with having these lists/tables incorporated into a larger article is that I don't think they really fit with the embedded list criteria (they're too extensive), which will limit the article's ability to rise in status and will certainly invite criticism. But no need worrying about that until the list gets longer and we've worked out the issues between this article and the main one. TAnthony 20:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is exactly what I was thinking, I'm glad we're on the same page. Actually, I think that process can begin as soon as the AfD is over, as your work on the article has really transformed it beyond the "in popular culture" scope anyway. TAnthony 18:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft warning

[edit]

See the Hidden Text warning below (visible if you edit this page) that I saw added to a helicopter page. Could be adapted here and elsewhere. Canuckle 21:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all fine and good, but invariably they do not work. People either don't read them, or ignore them, or assume that whatever Pokemon card or Simpsons episode *they* want to put in must be so much more important than that. DreamGuy 02:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Films

[edit]

...and drops of it later transform into fearsome giant scorpions;

A little pedantic but I'm fairly sure that the blood dripped through the sack carrying the head onto regular scorpions. These scorpions then grew to a fearsome size rather than the blood transforming into scorpions.--FruitMonkey 09:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bernini

[edit]

Here's another bust [3] by Gian Lorenzo Bernini that should be on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckle (talk • contribs) 13:35, August 13, 2007

I added it into the table ;) — TAnthonyTalk 17:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wings

[edit]

In some depictions, Medusa has wings on her temples. Is it on some of the myths? Does it have some deep meaning? I thought it was the standard depiction of Hypnos. --84.20.17.84 10:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More trivia

[edit]

I have removed a new list of trivial appearances by "other gorgons" in comics, etc. pulled out of other articles. Obviously, this article was created and adapted in the face of AFDs and such to feature only notable and sourced depictions of Medusa/gorgons, not list every single time the character appears on a TV show or in a comic. This article remains incomplete, but this small stuff will put it in danger again. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 17:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Further thoughts

[edit]

Shouldn't this be merged with the main Medusa article? I was looking for this information on the main article, and didn't find this article until later. IshtarDeity (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was split off to keep the Medisa article from getting too long (this is standard practice) ... but there's a link here right in the "Popular culture" section of the main article.— TAnthonyTalk 16:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cultural depictions of Medusa and Gorgons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deletion

[edit]

The User:Moomblum has made this edit in November 2018. Nearly all of the other editos of this editor have been reverted due to their blantant ignorace to Wikipedia:No original research. I suggest this edit to this article also be reverted. However, I leave that to you, the person reading this who is more familiar with this subject, or keep it if you'd rather. Cheers. —Prhartcom♥ 01:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The edit is certainly problematic. I think there's a kernel of encyclopedic information here that could be included. For now, though, I just reformatted the content, as the information about comics had been inserted into the article as multiple top-level sections. It needs to be edited down to a concise summary with sources, though. --DavidK93 (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That entire section was completely uncited, had few or no internal links to other Wikipedia articles, and appallingly edited to boot. Per WP:BOLD, I've just removed it wholesale, since it was pretty much unsalvageable in its previous state. If someone with a firmer grip on comic books can add a few relevant examples back in, of course, it probably would be appropriate. Gimubrc (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the list

[edit]

The "Modern use" section is really getting out of control in terms of size - I've cut it down several times and it still feels like a mess.

With an article like this, I think the best policy is to only include appearances which are mentioned in a linked Wikipedia article. This avoids us having an excessive number of entries for video games where Medusa appears as an opponent, or having people add self-published novels or short stories featuring the character into the "literature" section. I would encourage everyone editing the article to only add entries that meet this criterion, and to remove any which fail it.

See also WP:IPCEXAMPLES for further discussion on what should be included in articles of this kind. Gimubrc (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_depictions_of_Medusa_and_Gorgons&oldid=1212343160"